Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Good_Fella]

Jesus actually repudiates His mother and brothers several times because they didn’t believe in His mission and the nature of His person. [unquote]

Then the angel said to her, “Hail full of grace. The Lord is with you…Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever…The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.Therefore, the child will be called holy, the Son of God.”…Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.MAY IT BE DONE TO ME according to your word.” [Luke 1:28-38}

Mary understands what God wills of her and responds to His will with absolute faith and obedience. The Holy Spirit has enlightened her about Jesus.

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..Blessed are you who BELIEVED that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” [Luke 1:41-45]

Luke portrays Mary as a believer, whose faith stands in contrast to the disbelief of Zechariah and much later of the brethren of Jesus who abandoned him because of his teachings. Mary’s role as a believer in the infancy narrative should be seen in connection with the explicit mention of her presence among “those who believed” after the Resurrection (Cf. Acts 1:14). Elizabeth praises her cousin because she has been chosen to be the mother of the Messiah and on account of her faith.

The child’s father and mother were amazed (impressed) at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted and YOU YOURSELF A SWORD SHALL PIERCE so that the thoughts of many may be revealed.” [Luke 2:33-35]

Mary herself will not be untouched by the various violent reactions against the role of Jesus. Simeon’s words were fulfilled when Mary stood at the foot of the cross. The Gospels always present her together with her Son right to the very end of his life on earth. Her blessedness as mother of the Lord will be challenged by her son who describes true blessedness as “hearing the word of God and observing it”, exemplified so perfectly by his mother’s faith (Cf. Lk 11:27-28; 8:20-21]. Jesus wants us to have faith just like his mother had. He is reminded of his mother’s true faith in him when the people mention her and his disciples. Our Lord essentially tells them that their faith should amount to the faith exemplified by Mary.

When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servers, “DO WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU.” [John 2:3-5]

Hidden in Mary’s words is an awareness of the power of her divine Son. She may have already witnessed other miracles by him which were not recorded in the scriptures. John tells us at the end of his Gospel that not everything Jesus did was written down. We can imagine how much Mary learned and came to believe in Jesus during his hidden life. He must have told her many secret things, too, concerning himself and his mission. Anyway, Jesus is telling his mother that the moment to reveal himself has not yet arrived according to his Father’s appointment. But implicit in Mary’s words is the suggestion that he begin his mission now. Jesus responds by asking her if this is what she really wants, because once he reveals himself to the world their life together will no longer be the same. Simeon’s words would start to take affect on her. Our Lord is presenting to his mother not merely the choice of asking for a miracle or not; he is asking her whether she is prepared to send him to his death. Mary knows why Jesus came into the world, so her response is one of complete cooperation with the redemptive mission of her Son: “Do whatever he tells you.” Mary bids us to do the will of her Son, just as Jesus came into the world to do the will of his heavenly Father.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[KofC660]

Being Catholic, we have no need of Sacred Scripture to “prove” anything.

We believe Our Lady and Mother Mary was Assumed into Heaven because the Church says, and no other reason is needed.

Quoting Sacred Scripture is a “neat trick” to use when arguing with Protestants, but it is my opinion that arguing with Protestants is a waste of time.

I think that if you want to learn “neat tricks”, card and coin tricks for entertaining children and adults are much more fulfilling than quoting Sacred Scripture to heretics.

 

[Good_Fella]

For some reason i’m unable to respond to your message so i copied and pasted some of it here.

This is just as much a problem for me as it is for you. Your church has never defined or interpreted what a verse of scripture means. You to do not have an infallible interpreter that has interpreted all the verses of the Scriptures that tell you what they mean.

Can you show me where the offical interpretations of all the verses or just some of the verses of the Scriptures have been interpreted by pope and bishops can be found?
Without such a source you have no way to tell me or anyone is wrong in how they interpret the scriptures.

I believe you have already raised this issue way back. And I have already cited verses which support the dogma of the infallibilty of the Pope and the Sacred Magisterium. And I have pointed out that the Catholic Church is ‘one’ and ‘apostolic’. But you refuse to believe in something you do not want to believe in. I don’t wish to repeat myself.

These verses show that we need help in interpreting the scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. Divinely appointed leadership (apostolic succession) in the Teaching Office of the one Church is needed: Acts 8:30-31; Hebrews 5:12.

Jesus commanded his apostles to “preach”, not write a Bible (Mk 16:15) And only three of the apostles became authors of the sacred texts. There is no “evidence” in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended that the Bible be the sole authority of the Christian faith. But Jesus did commission his apostles to form his visible Church. The Church is Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scriptures have emerged from this tradition to form the Deposit of Faith.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Not so. Speculation has to do with facts. In this case for this doctrine there are no eyewitness accounts nor Scripture to back it up with. No facts. Even claiming apostolic authority can make something true that is not.

It appears that Scripture is your only rule of faith, and that you beleive that truth can only be found within it’s pages. For a person with a truncated experience of divine revelation, apostolic authority will have no benefit.

However, that Apostolic authority exists, and teaches truth, right on par with the scriptures that also teach truth. Our way of life is not based on facts, but faith. It does not exclude facts, but the heard of it is “foolishness” to your world of facts.

Can you show me where the offical interpretations of all the verses or just some of the verses of the Scriptures have been interpreted by pope and bishops can be found?

You will find these official interpretation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Without such a source you have no way to tell me or anyone is wrong in how they interpret the scriptures.

Clearly this is no true. You have been telling us that we are wrong in the way we interpret the scripture, yet you don’t claim to be an infallible source, so anyone can do it.

 

[guanophore]

Can you show me where the offical interpretations of all the verses or just some of the verses of the Scriptures have been interpreted by pope and bishops can be found?

You will find these official interpretation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Without such a source you have no way to tell me or anyone is wrong in how they interpret the scriptures.

Clearly this is no true. You have been telling us that we are wrong in the way we interpret the scripture, yet you don’t claim to be an infallible source, so anyone can do it.

 

[guanophore]

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

That may be. However we don’t know if He did since there is no evidence He did.

Perhaps you are having a “faith crisis” and are wondering if anything you have believed is true at all? You sound like Thomas. “Unless I see…I will not believe”. May Jesus wounds come to you, that you may put your hand within, and believe.

 

[guanophore]

Yeah, So What About Mary? If the Bible picks these others out, why not Mary?

Jesus actually repudiates His mother and brothers several times because they didn’t believe in His mission and the nature of His person.

This is an absurd and erroneous assertion. Jesus NEVER “upbraids” his mother, let alone "several times’. Mary never wavered in her faith in her Divine Son, from the moment she learned the prophesies about him as a child even unto His death on the cross. The reason she was not with the women in the garden, and the Apostles in the upper room is because she was the ONLY ONE WHO NEVER DOUBTED the truth of His words that He would rise on the third day.

In the story of The Christ she plays a minor role,

Those are your protestant traditions talking, but not the teaching of the Apostlic traditions.

but in the modern RCC, her importance approaches that of Jesus.

If you think this is a Roman phenomenon, I strongly urge you to look into the Eastern Orthodox. Google the word Theotokos, and see what you find. The same apostolic tradition is found there, even though they reject the Vicar in Rome just as you do. How do you account for that?

Jesus taught us how to pray. Where were the saints or Mary then?

Learning the prayers, so that they could use them forever in heaven!

She did not teach, she performed no miracles, she did not believe in Christ’s mission during His lifetime. CHRIST SAID SO!

She clearly taught Jesus, and He seemed to turn out ok! I don’t think you can assume she did not teach, although her ministry would have been focused on women and children. It is also an error that she did not believe in Jesus. You seem to be suffering from a misunderstanding of scripture here.

“Here are my mother and brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Not a big recommendation for Mary and her holiness.

 

[guanophore]

Being Catholic, we have no need of Sacred Scripture to “prove” anything.

We believe Our Lady and Mother Mary was Assumed into Heaven because the Church says, and no other reason is needed.

Quoting Sacred Scripture is a “neat trick” to use when arguing with Protestants, but it is my opinion that arguing with Protestants is a waste of time.

I think that if you want to learn “neat tricks”, card and coin tricks for entertaining children and adults are much more fulfilling than quoting Sacred Scripture to heretics.

Prov 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2492969]Oh really?

Then tell me what day, month and year was Christ born then? I’ve seen everything from 6AD to about 2BC, and any month between September and April.

Do you have any doubt the Jesus was born even though we may not know the exact date? Do we not have good reocords for this in the gospels?

What was his lineage? Two different genealogies, even in the Bible itself.

These lineages are from both Joseph and Mary. Thats why there are 2.

Did the flight to Egypt really happen?

yes

If so then why does Luke say that the parents of Jesus went up every year to Jerusalem for Passover?

Because he says they did and evidently he had information they did. See Luke 1:1-4

You think they did so from Egypt? And with King Herod still around?

Yes.

What evidence do we have of his life?

Do you mean Jesus? If so, we have the gospel acounts.

No mention of him at all, anywhere, until at least 20 or 30 years after his death.

Whom are you referring to here?

In what order did the events of his ministry occur? Again, the Gospels differ in chronology and details - even down to the very names of some of the 12!

Luke 1:3 tells us that he wrote his gospel in consecutive order.

What exactly happened on Easter Sunday? The Gospels mention ‘women’ v ‘Mary Magdalene alone’, earthquake and angels v Christ himself appearing to Mary, Jesus meeting his apostles in Galilee as opposed to in the still-locked upper room in Jerusalem.

The women were the first ones at the tomb. The angels were first and after women Peter and john arrive.

Were the Gospels written by the people they are named after?

Matthew and John are good canditates for this.

In fact were ANY of them written by eyewitnesses at all?

Matthew and John appear to be.

Or by people with access to eyewitnesses? What evidence do we have that this is the case?

We know Luke used eyewitnesses accounts while there is evidence that Mark got his gospel from Peter.

How do we know that the John who wrote Revelation is the same as the John who wrote the Gospel and the same who wrote the letter(s) of John? And the same as the ‘beloved disciple’?

Good question. We don’t know with certainty.

If you applied the same impossibly strict criteria to the Gospels as you do to the doctrine of the Asuumption then it stumps me why you don’t believe HE is just a fable and myth too.

The primary reason is that we have very good evidence for the questions you ask for the gospels above but for the claims of Mary that your church makes we don’t.

 

[justasking4]

Perhaps you are having a “faith crisis” and are wondering if anything you have believed is true at all? You sound like Thomas. “Unless I see…I will not believe”. May Jesus wounds come to you, that you may put your hand within, and believe.

Not so. My faith is well grounded in the scriptures. What i’m concerned about are catholics being deceived by these doctrines that your church teaches as true but when we look at the evidence its really not there for many of these claims.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2494763]It appears that Scripture is your only rule of faith, and that you beleive that truth can only be found within it’s pages. For a person with a truncated experience of divine revelation, apostolic authority will have no benefit. However, that Apostolic authority exists, and teaches truth, right on par with the scriptures that also teach truth.

How can you have “apostolic authority” when the apostles never taught anything about Mary’s assumption?

Our way of life is not based on facts, but faith. It does not exclude facts, but the heard of it is “foolishness” to your world of facts.

If your faith is not based on facts you don’t have the truth.

You will find these official interpretation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I have looked at it and the catechism does not interpret verses but gives you doctrine and practices. That is not its function.

Clearly this is no true. You have been telling us that we are wrong in the way we interpret the scripture, yet you don’t claim to be an infallible source, so anyone can do it.

There is no such thing as an infallible interpreter of scripture. What we must do is to study the scuptures to find its truths.

 

[guanophore]

Do you really believe that Jesus and his parents travelled from Egypt to Jerusalem every year?!

Because he says they did and evidently he had information they did. See Luke 1:1-4

What evidence do we have of Jesus’ life?

Do you mean Jesus? If so, we have the gospel acounts.

You seem to be saying, if it is not in the Bible, it did not happen. How do you know that Jesus lived from the age of 12, to the age of 30? since there are no facts provided, this is just speculation, is it not? How do you know He did not go back to heaven for those decades?

Matthew and John are good canditates for this. Matthew and John appear to be written by eyewitnesses.

According to your criteria, that makes Luke and Mark invalid! They were not eyewitnesses, therefore,whatever they had to say is speculation,just like the Assumption of Mary.

We know Luke used eyewitnesses accounts while there is evidence that Mark got his gospel from Peter.

Really? What evidence is that?

Good question. We don’t know with certainty.

Well, then that makes Revelation pure speculation, since we cannot know it was written by the same John who witnessed Jesus. Maybe we better get it out of the canon, huh Luther?

The primary reason is that we have very good evidence for the questions you ask for the gospels above but for the claims of Mary that your church makes we don’t.

News flash, justasking4. Those gospels were written by Catholics who believed in Sacred Tradition. They preached and taught the gospel for decades before writing it. They were fully committed to the truth taught orally.

 

[justasking4]

Being Catholic, we have no need of Sacred Scripture to “prove” anything.

We believe Our Lady and Mother Mary was Assumed into Heaven because the Church says, and no other reason is needed.

Quoting Sacred Scripture is a “neat trick” to use when arguing with Protestants, but it is my opinion that arguing with Protestants is a waste of time.

I think that if you want to learn “neat tricks”, card and coin tricks for entertaining children and adults are much more fulfilling than quoting Sacred Scripture to heretics.

These are not “neat tricks” but things i would encourage you to consider what the scriptures say about here and what teaches. What you will find they are not the same thing.

 

[guanophore]

Not so. My faith is well grounded in the scriptures. What i’m concerned about are catholics being deceived by these doctrines that your church teaches as true but when we look at the evidence its really not there for many of these claims.

I guess the best I can say to you is, don’t concern yourself at all! And maybe, it would be better to take your “concern” elsewhere, because proselytizing is against the forum rules here.

 

[KofC660]

These are not “neat tricks” but things i would encourage you to consider what the scriptures say about here and what teaches. What you will find they are not the same thing.

You say that as a heretic. Why should I listen to you?

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2493321]Why do you keep returning to the beginning of the thread and continue a circular argument? We have alraedy discussed this issue, and both of us have had our say, so let’s leave it at that. But just to refresh your memory, here are a host of verses that support the Assumption, at least implicitly: Genesis 3:15; 5:24; Heb 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11-12; 1Mac 2:58; Psalm 132:8; 2 Cor 12:2; Mt 27:52-53; Lk1:49 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 12:1.

These are not circular arguments. What has not been shown on the catholic side is that these verses used are anything about what your church claims about her.

In 2 Thessolonians 2:15, Paul exhorts us to hold fast to the oral tradition, not just the written texts.

This not what Paul is saying here. He exhorts them to hold to the traditions “they were taught”. The traditions Paul is referring to are his own and not what a church would teach in the future.

Apostolic tradition says that Mary was assumed into heaven.

That may be but that doesn’t mean its true. There is no evidence for it.

Meanwhile, Mary’s bones were never claimed by the early Church and have not yet been claimed by the Catholic Church, because her body has vanished. The Church would not lose track of the body of the Mother of her Lord.

This has got to be one of the weakest arguments i have seen in awhile. We say the samething about all kinds of people in the NT and say they to were assumed into heaven.

I will side with you, Justasking4, if you can produce Mary’s body and prove it is hers. But I wish you luck, since her body is resurrected and in heaven with her Son’s glorious body.

You are assuming this without any evidence.

We may have the same experience on the Last Day. Mary has preceded us in virtue of who her offspring is. Why is that hard to believe?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I don’t believe it for a number of reasons. For one there is no evidence for it. 2-the apostles never taught such a thing.

 

[LilyM]

Do you have any doubt the Jesus was born even though we may not know the exact date? Do we not have good reocords for this in the gospels?

Why believe the Gospels? Billions don’t.

If you claim to have doubts about Mary being assumed because Apostolic tradition doesn’t record the date - yet you believe Christ was born in spite of the fact that we don’t know the date, you are setting up a double standard.

These lineages are from both Joseph and Mary. Thats why there are 2.

I’d love to see THAT either written in scripture or stated in Apostolic tradition! Both of them are clearly stated to be lineages of JOSEPH, not Mary.

Because he says they did and evidently he had information they did. See Luke 1:1-4

What information? Where does it say such in the Gospels?

Do you mean Jesus? If so, we have the gospel acounts.

Again, playing devil’s advocate here, what makes them trustworthy?

The women were the first ones at the tomb. The angels were first and after women Peter and john arrive.

See - was it the women or the angels who were first? You’re contradicting yourself. AND more importantly did Jesus meet the Apostles in Galilee or in Jerusalem?

Matthew and John are good canditates for this.

John says he’s an eyewitness, sure, but Matthew??? Where anywhere in his Gospel does it say he’s an eyewitness? And how do you know that Gospel was written by Matthew? Certainly a lot of gnostic writings are wrongly attributed to one or other of the Apostles.

Matthew and John appear to be.

Again, prove it in Matthew’s case.

We know Luke used eyewitnesses accounts while there is evidence that Mark got his gospel from Peter.

How do we know? Where on earth does is state this in scripture? Do you have any idea how many years AFTER the Gospels were written that they were attributed to their writers?

The primary reason is that we have very good evidence for the questions you ask for the gospels above but for the claims of Mary that your church makes we don’t.

Tosh. There’s not one scrap of evidence from Christ’s own lifetime proving that he even lived at all. And evidence that he rose from the dead? Evidence that Christ was God? Pretty flimsy at best, closer to non-existent.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2495773]Why believe the Gospels? Billions don’t.

That may be but its not because the evidence for them. Its quite good.

If you claim to have doubts about Mary being assumed because Apostolic tradition doesn’t record the date - yet you believe Christ was born in spite of the fact that we don’t know the date, you are setting up a double standard.

Not so. Each claim must stand on its own merits. I’m not even asking for a specific date for Mary’s assumption but eyewitness accounts from the 1st century. That you don’t have.

I’d love to see THAT either written in scripture or stated in Apostolic tradition! Both of them are clearly stated to be lineages of JOSEPH, not Mary.

What information? Where does it say such in the Gospels?

Look at the lineage in Matthew and in Luke.

Again, playing devil’s advocate here, what makes them trustworthy?

There are a number of things that support their trustworthiness. The times and places line up with history. We also have secular witness to some things in the NT. A good book to get is The Reliabilty of the Gospels by Bloomberg.

See - was it the women or the angels who were first? You’re contradicting yourself. AND more importantly did Jesus meet the Apostles in Galilee or in Jerusalem?

No contradiction. Just because one writer may record one angel and another 2 is not a contradiction. Rather one writer gives this more detail than the other.

John says he’s an eyewitness, sure, but Matthew??? Where anywhere in his Gospel does it say he’s an eyewitness?

John 21:24

And how do you know that Gospel was written by Matthew?

Historical traditions.

Certainly a lot of gnostic writings are wrongly attributed to one or other of the Apostles.

Good point.

Again, prove it in Matthew’s case.

See above.

How do we know? Where on earth does is state this in scripture?

In some cases it does not. However for the others we do have some good historical backings. In some we really don’t know as in Hebrews.

Do you have any idea how many years AFTER the Gospels were written that they were attributed to their writers?

The NT was not finalized until 4th century.

Tosh. There’s not one scrap of evidence from Christ’s own lifetime proving that he even lived at all.

There are a number secular sources that refer to Christ and those in the gospels.

And evidence that he rose from the dead?

The evidence for the resurrection is the best attested fact in ancient history. There is more evidence for it than any other thing. In the I Corinthians 15:1-8 there are over 500 people who saw the risen Christ not to mention a couple who did not believe at first.

Evidence that Christ was God? Pretty flimsy at best, closer to non-existent.

Not so. The things attributed to Christ (miracles done in public) and the nature of these miracles coupled with those who knew Him makes a powerful case the Jesus was indeed God in the flesh.

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2494646]I believe you have already raised this issue way back. And I have already cited verses which support the dogma of the infallibilty of the Pope and the Sacred Magisterium.

Is it not true that through most of catholic history that the pope was not considered infallible?

And I have pointed out that the Catholic Church is ‘one’ and ‘apostolic’. But you refuse to believe in something you do not want to believe in. I don’t wish to repeat myself.

I’m aware of this claim. What does this have to do with Mary?

These verses show that we need help in interpreting the scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. Divinely appointed leadership (apostolic succession) in the Teaching Office of the one Church is needed: Acts 8:30-31; Hebrews 5:12.

Then why has not your church infallibly interpreted every verse of the Bible if it really has this authority? Think how this could be such a help for catholics.

Jesus commanded his apostles to “preach”, not write a Bible (Mk 16:15)

Then why do we consider their writings Scripture?

And only three of the apostles became authors of the sacred texts. There is no “evidence” in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended that the Bible be the sole authority of the Christian faith.

This is problematic for you. Only the Scriptures are said to be inspired-inerrant. What other authority do you have that is inspired-inerrant?

But Jesus did commission his apostles to form his visible Church. The Church is Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scriptures have emerged from this tradition to form the Deposit of Faith.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I have never seen such reasoning like this before. Are you saying your church considers itself “Sacred Tradition”?

 

[justasking4]

I guess the best I can say to you is, don’t concern yourself at all! And maybe, it would be better to take your “concern” elsewhere, because proselytizing is against the forum rules here.

How am i proselytizing? I have made my case against these marian doctrines as not being biblical nor grounded in history.